Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Maty

  • Birthday 05/28/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto, Canada
  • Interests
    -Philosophy, <br />-Music; Classical, Jazz<br />-literature; prose, poetry

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
  • Copyright

Maty's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. Maty

    My Poems

    I think that I might have misled you in that quote; I was referring to poemhunter.com. Actually, on this forum I've had some very productive correspondences. Thanks for the link, I'm sure it's going to be useful.
  2. Maty

    My Poems

    As per a very apt correction and suggestion made by Brian Faulkner at the time I first posted it, this is the finished poem (last line). For some unfortunate reason one cannot edit his own posts in the forum, so I could not alter it... (and a few others)
  3. Maty

    My Poems

    Thank you for your kind words, Intellectuallammo. (Although I wonder what a lammo means ) Its interesting to see how a reader can relate closer to a poem through the association of the author's experience (described in the poem) to one of his own--I guess that when a poem strums a personal string, we can feel the vibration, rather then merely comprehend the subject, and thus experience it with greater intimacy; which, in turn, stirs deeper emotions--hence a stronger emotional response. I guess that this is the reason why the same poem (or artwork) can arouse different people to different degrees; one would feel stronger when the vibrations resonate with a personal note. Yes, that is correct. Those poems were my first attempts to write (poetry) in English, and I was seeking constructive responses. However, most of those I happened to correspond with seemed more content with patting each other on the back than with analyzing poems, while some seemed to be trying to prove something to someone just by being rude--even though the first was harmless; and the second even less harmful than the first, that was not what I came for--so I saw no reason to linger.
  4. Wow! When I saw that you are in Toronto, Canada and that you write, I was wondering if you are at all familiar with Margaret Atwood? I'm reading everything that I can find of hers right now!

  5. Maty

    My Poems

    It’s been a while since I've posted here (about a year with no internet) and following are some poems dating across this year (some earlier). I feel that the style has matured and, even though not yet fully satisfying, some are getting closer to the way I envision my poetry. The order is not chronological. 'Hope Would Sprout Within Your Garden' (Jan. 2006) Let me borrow from your voice That color, which you wear; And wrap in tender shades This promise, that I nourish... Let my heart rejoice, And let my mind repair... For as your blessing fades; My precious child will flourish. And I shall ever cherish Your beauty... ------------------------------------------------------------ 'Enigma' (Aug. 2006) Enigma; What hides behind your shade? What underlies your whisper? An instant’s brightest blade With blinding silence sliced me, Then left me as I bled. And while passion crucifies me To gasp over the bed Of a gaping question mark I hope a sudden spark to light The mystery within. ------------------------------------------------------------ 'And So Your Promise Fades...' (Jan 2006) Painful, is the fall from grace; Dreadful, is the cause. Yet neo-Pharos dare not face Their culminating burdens... While hateful lashes stroke your face With lines of dirty prose They kicked their saddles into place To ride on your abundance... Yet freedom, you would not embrace them Into your fruitful gardens; When human thought provoked its base, You revoked your promise... While over seas, across the years, Philosophers stood grinning; Watching worlds of poems Drown beneath their brutal jeers... The lighted-land of poets, Ceased from seeking out the meanings; They turned to count on feelings, While they’ve had none left but fears... Yet freedom, now those very waves Are claiming at your mountains... For how long do you think your walls Could stand against their thrust? Until boots march on your fathers' graves To drain your youthful fountains... As from your streets would rise the calls: "Our Leader We Must Trust!" Oh, dear land of promise, "…Ashes to Ashes... Dust to Dust..." Is that the only requiem, you’d care to give your past? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Introspection I: Acknowledgement (Dec. 2005) I always dress you in disguise, I always shower you with lies, And always think I could devise, Another way to mispresent you... I never look straight in your eyes, For deep inside, a secret lays; A tortured soul in vein denies That I, cannot resent you. I always turn my head in shame, As if your mark would stain my name And just your spark will fuse a flame; In darkness, I won't know you... And thus, embarked in blindfold, lame, In sinful drunkenness; hidden blame, Consumes an incognito-game Those hours that I owe you... Loneliness, empress of night, My trembling hands give-up the fight, I drag myself out, to the light, And beg the ink to hold its lashes. Loneliness! Oh, what a sight, My humble flag, half raised and white; Is bright, and might—And so, it's right! That I should lose this fight… For truth had won, And it alone, Should not have been denied. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 'Avowed I'm To Your Thrill' I want you, yet, I know you not... Only glimpses did I caught: A thoughtful glance, a silent nod, In a graceful elegance you float. Among a crowd, I know you not... And yet, I want you in this lot. As seldom traces, blush on faces, Where your paces brushed; And yet, their echoes hushed... As hurried laces rushed those places Where your presence flushed... I want you, yet, I know you not... Still, in all my dreams I sought; To know your face, to hang your coat-- Embrace you; Oh, embarrassed thought… I want you, yet, I know you not-- Avowed I'm to your thrill! For though, I may not know you still; Someday, my love, I know I will. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Oppertunity' (Nov. 2005) You came out of nowhere, holding a key; To all that tomorrow might offer... A lantren of light; of joy and delight; Of hope, and a scent of the sea... Yet I retreat to my ocean, That ragged-up, old notion, No, This time I shall not hover! For if I fail to turn; To act on my turn, Back to nowhere— You will return... ----------------------------------------------------------------- 'Just a Few Paces Apart' A few paces away From comming your way... Just few paces away From going my way... And just paces away That barrier stood; Where parted "I can..." From "I could..." ---------------------------------------------------------------- 'With Poets' Voices Leaves the World' (January 2006) May no sorrow lift a pen, To testify of growing fears... May no lines attempt to ban, A silent sigh, witholding tears... In poets' voices lives the world-- The weight of which upon them bears; In poets' voices grieves the world-- If they're still crying, no one hears... With poets' voices leaves the world... And if they're dieing; it was sold... Into the brutal hands of jeers. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 'Day by Day' (April 2006) Day by day Words have their way, To come-- Inspired; Or expired... Day by day Life has its say, And day by day-- Cannot deny it. So, day by day I'm here to pay, Lord 'Time' The means To glorify it. And hope inspired Be those hymns I live (Then leave behind)... ------------------------------------------------------------------ 'I Thank You for Your Beauty' (Jan. 2006) Beautiful you are, And I thank you for your beauty. Though soon, you must depart, Back to that place, where beauty roams... If I had known the art; Of making beauty linger, I would not have been the singer Of those "By By Beauty" songs... And yet, the much I long, To stroll between your parts; My heart would never hurt by darts, Ponder it would, eager... For, with every time I see you, Anew I know you are— Beautiful, And for that sight I thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Quest (Sept. 2006) I never thought I'd find your eyes While brown still animates my beard. I never dared to hope, you see, The ties of ropes I've always feared. A gallant soul knows where she lies; The one who spells her truest hymns. Yet truce had taught her nameless trails: Life's hungry gallows, favors dreams... My kingdom's gates, by silence barred, I never wished to fling. Here solitude had blessed me trice: Sole peasant, lord, and king. I humbly worked this sacred land And proudly ruled my earth; Where no untamed, or playful string, Dared tamper with my wrath. So harmony prevailed my kingdom, Time strolled peaceful in his pace. The dreamer woke and, veiled by freedom, Wisely took a scholar's face. With thrust of rustling script and page, A growing universe expanded-- A space untouched by alien rage Where ageless sage his pledge amended. And yet, as once a kingdom fell-- Eluded by a Trojan pun; Ill fate cast bait to try my dell By ray of an exiled desert’s sun Unbarred by silent walls she sneaked While all my kingdom fast asleep; Flickered, then perished in a blink— Leaving a monument to rest. Greet dozy eyes, where none had been, Now lies an unforeseen mirage, The image of a goddess: Skin-- as light as early snow; Brow, serene as moonlit night. Yet even lips, so ripe and keen, To strip a priest of all denials Would dim to haze as one would meet The gaze of naked, fearless eyes. Silence sealed the stricken square As all fell captive to the spell. Then clink of heels--and swords came bare; To bar the vision in a cell. "My lord?" the Lord turned to the king Who failed to order his decree. And yet, the king reached not his sword, But faintly whispered: "Let it be..." Three nights and days the image set To solely crown the royal square. A jealous sun would flare and set; A lonely moon brood pale and bare. Three nights and days, the king would sit, And stare into those piercing eyes. And time anew would miss a beat, As from their depth a question cries. Could somewhere, in an endless desert, Could--where heat burns an open sore; In some oasis, spared from hazard, Safely lie the vision's core?! His weary mind yield no recession; A pondering quest for answers called. And in the heat of newfound passion; Of a sudden--he felt cold… For, in those eyes, had stirred a premise, A youthful dream which failed to drop. From days when hope held treasured promise, Not life's hungry gallows’ rope. Could really be there such true eyes? As fresh as air; as cool as ice? Or be it but damned desert sun’s-- Teasing and elusive puns?! Three nights and days the king had pondered; As thoughts weighed heavy on his neck, For marching out with frail a vision Might prove shuffling splinters back… Three nights and days, the king had pondered; And on the morning of the fourth-- He rose erect to greet the sunrise And swiftly mounted up his horse. Down on the square, where kingdom gathered Neither eye the king’s would drop The peasant’s spoke of looming hazard, The lord’s--of long-forgotten hope. As trusted hands the lord extended, From his farewell a sigh was caught; “My friend,” the king’s faint smile demanded, “Through many battlefields we’ve fought…” He bowed, and turned where sun awaits, His features bearing none of plight And with impervious voice commanded: “Unbar the gates!” --and entered light. And with that sight, a triumph wave Had braved the lord’s heart over fright-- For not a grave king, nor a knave trod, But a daring, youthful knight. Yet on brink of worlds he paused And for the last addressed the Lord: “Even, should this prove in vain-- Don’t haste have hope slain by your sword… From now--we’ll leave the gates ajar, For, be it but damned desert’s pun; Beauty still may live somewhere Beneath an exiled desert’s sun. The thud of hooves pierced silent vest As king embarked on maiden quest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Fact or Fable' (Sept. 2006) Meet me on that subtle strip Where ocean waters brush on shore-- Before their last of traces seeps; Yet past their drifting to and fro. That bridge, where luring sirens’ songs Prolong on wings of whistling winds, And mermaids surface, body long; Then rise to walk on mortal feet. There dreams, reality awaits; Where times elapse by portal gates, And poets hymns ensue their fates-- For better be it, Or for worse… Don’t curse this heartening inspiration, To die in sudden suffocation; Linger, yet another spell, To tell if fact from fable fell. Then, on brink of day and night-- Dive back into dreamy waters; Or proceed onto the light.
  6. No. That depends. What I've tried to present in my post was the following: 1. First, that even should their decision had been immoral, there would be no ground to call for a government action unless their course would have inflicted harm on someone else, and-- 2. That, in this instance, the first and outmost source of immorality (if any) would lie not in them posing a threat to someone else, but in opening themselves to a possible threat by setting as their first priority to 'provide service to the people', as you say, without asking who are those people, and under what terms. Now, as I’ve said in my previous post, I do not know enough about the conditions in China to say whether that is the case or not, but if China is given to the whims of a dictator, I think that investing their own capital into building an enterprise for the people on the quicksand of their government would constitute an immoral decision; precisely due to a failure in setting their own self interest as their first priority.
  7. I believe this should have been stated much earlier, but ‘better late than never’. Let us relate this to the previous quote. You are right about the government having to employ precise language in its laws, and yet, it is legal VS illegal that these laws are meant to identify--not moral VS immoral. A government cannot (and must not) force an individual to be moral--so long as his immorality poses no threat to other individual citizens. To take a simple example, a perfectly fit individual can decide that he wishes to work no more in order sustain himself, but would rather beg his bread from passers-by--his decision is clearly irrational, and thus immoral--and yet, if the government would have had a legitimate right to "put him back on the right track", we would not be as far off from those Slave Countries that you are condemning. Nevertheless, just as he cannot be forced to work; passers-by cannot be forced to "work for him" and to provide him with their bread, or (should we have lived under pure Capitalism) with a street corner to occupy and beg his bread from. Only if (and when) the man were to attack someone, or even sit on property he was not allowed to occupy--would the government have a legitimate cause to intervene. This may appear as a subtle difference--however, I believe it is a very crucial one. It is the reminder that freedom is also the freedom to make mistakes--and to incur their consequences. The other side of this coin is when a 'government' is endowed with some assumed "superior knowledge", and grows beyond its legitimate scoop of protecting individual rights--and into ‘educating’ (or, in plain language, forcing) individuals to do what it decides as best for them. For an example of this, one need not look far across the horizon to China or North Korea--how about the government's waged "war against tobacco"? I live in Canada, but I believe there is a similar phenomena in the U.S. as well (at least in some parts). The underling principle is that the government knows better then an individual what is best for him--and can therefore "protect him from himself"...! As for the issue of a company operating in a "slave country", I agree that it would be morally wrong on the company's side--but I disagree with the idea that the government should be allowed to forbid the company from doing so. As far as I can see, the only time (if any) a government can justly venture into the economy in such a manner as to restrict certain trade venues is when such trading would hamper the national security--for example, if a certain company was to trade in firearms or the likes with an avowed enemy. Yet, if a certain company were to have factories in a Totalitarian state, where cheap labor would be manufacturing its products for ridicules prices--not only would it not pose a national threat, it would further reduce it--for those dictators would be starving and overworking their own citizens for the benefit of our market, which would be overflowing with their cheaply produced goods; our market would keep on growing and benefiting, while theirs shrinking and stagnating--until their citizens would either recognize the source of their hardships--their government--and revolt; or shrink into oblivion. In either way, the main fault would be with their government. There might be reasons to find moral blame with the company as well, yet such reasons (hopefully grounded) should be addressed through public action (such as Boycott)--and not a governmental one. It is worth noting that even in so-called ‘sweatshops’, it is the government who’s in fault, while business at least gives those workers a chance for survival--and for a future. The question of forced labor is a different one, and probably for a different thread. Now, this last issue of a company's morality brings me to my last point--which, strangely enough, was not mentioned yet... The question of a company's moral obligations was discussed a number of times, and yet was never really answered--neither in general, nor within the context of the topic. Drew brought up the legitimate profit-motive, yet for some reason felt that it had to be divorced from morality in order for a company to be able to pursue it; while others here helped to further separate them by saying that 'business is not only about profit'--or at least not 'profit at all cost'. Now, I'm not saying that this last statement is untrue, to the contrary; it is a very important point--but it seems like in the heat of this discussion the question of a company's goals, and the science which guides them; morality--was somewhat forgotten. A company's main goal, just like an individual's, is to do that which would prove most profitable for it--but most profitable in the long range. Now, let us consider this for a moment. I did not have a chance to read Microsoft's 'mission statement', but I did read the article published by Google (to which a link was posted in one of the earlier posts). The 'profit motive' as such was not mentioned; or, if it was, it was probably so short and insignificant that it failed to stick into my memory--on the other hand, what was stated over and over is the wish to (not the exact words) 'provide the people of China with an access to worldwide communications', 'provide the Chinese public with a better service', etc. Moreover, it was mentioned that in order to do so they would have to invest a good deal of resources. So, as to the preceding discussion of profit and morality; they did not seem to embark on this venture with the glowing sign of the dollar--but rather with the compassionate faces of those who want to 'better the world'; which, when coming not as a desirable consequence, but as a mission statement, is the hallmark of altruism. Now, I must say that they seemed to be quite sincere in their statement, and I don't think that they mean any harm--but the way I see it, if profit, and profit in the long run, was indeed their main concern, they would have no desire to invest any capital into a totalitarian state. And this is where I want to ask a question: frankly, I'm not really up to date with the Chinese Republic--but the last I've heard, they were under a Communist reign, i.e. a reign given to the whims of a brutal dictator, i.e. a dictator whose whims may stifle the boarders and the rules just as quickly and as easily as loosen them; so, even if we assume that the dictator is having a 'good mode' today (or a good plan), and even if this day is stretching across a few months or years--isn't a business concern pouring money onto such a scene--reassured by the dictators patting right hand--puts himself in a constant threat of the left one pulling out a gun announcing the nationalization? I mean, how can you trust a con? And if you are telling yourself that he won't touch you because his country is starving and he needs your ingenuity, well, what should stop him once you've pulled him out of the ditch? This is why a company, just like an individual, needs morality; and since a company is merely an assembly of individuals, each one of them should be an individual i.e. possessing his own individual convictions, derived from his own code of values, and based on a rational morality--and this is something no Ten Commandments, or a legislative equivalent, can substitute. Lastly, as much as I appreciate Jimmy Wales for his unwillingness to compromise with the Chinese government on the issue of censorship, he offers yet another example of a person naively believing that he can reason with a con: A government that couldn't care less about people dying in the streets would be moved by the fact that the surviving ones won't be able to tell the world about it...? Naïve?
  8. Please elaborate, if you will; by 'situation', do you refer to my personal/financial situation which might (or not) allow me to do so, or do you refer to a certain legal status according to which I might (or might not) be able to work in the U.S? How could it jeopardize my citizenship? PS: Thanks for the link; I will definitely check it out.
  9. I am not sure if that is the right place to post this topic, but it seemed to me the most appropriate. Please feel free to relocate it should it become necessary. I have been living in Toronto, Canada for the past 4 years, and have lately obtained my citizenship. As it stands, I am greatly dissatisfied with the Canadian political/economical policies (in short; the welfare system), and frankly (to use a mild tone) I am quite doubtful as to the future of such state of affairs and its imminent consequences. I have therefore begun considering a move to the U.S, in hope of finding there a place of more politico-economical freedom. My first question, therefore, would be in regards to the actual truth of such an assumption; although I am definitely aware of the existence of certain differences between the U.S system and the Canadian one—In favor of the U.S, my knowledge of them—their scoop and domain—is quite limited, and my concern is whether the contrast between the two is significant enough to warrant such a move; which would entail once again starting from scratch. The second question, depending on the answer to the first, would be where such places might be? Which states and cities are closest to the Capitalistic ideal, are most politically and economically free, and (maybe most importantly) are most likely to remain this way (or to get even closer)? And the last question is regarding the legal aspect of the issue; what is the current status of Canadian citizens within the U.S? From what I know, Canadians can freely travel in and within the U.S, and maybe even reside, yet I’m not sure about work; whether or not I will be able to freely seek employment once over there. Then there are issues such as prices for goods/rent, workplaces, safety, etc. I would generally assume that places with more economic freedom would have better conditions regarding all such aspects—but then again, there might be some other catches… Bottom line, I’m looking for as much information as I can on these, or any related questions, and would greatly appreciate all comments, suggestions, or reference to possible sources of information. Thanks!
  10. What do you mean by 'fully integrates esthetics'? As far as I know, esthetics (as a philosophical field) is yet to be thoroughly covered. Even the key question 'what is beauty?' is yet to be answered. What I think you might ask is rather or not a person tries to (consciously) grasp everything that happens or (is) evident; for example, when listening to music (which is also a process of identification and integration). Yet, that still doesn't qualify as an 'integrated esthetics' in the philosophical sense.
  11. Maty

    My Poems

    I find that readers tend to get lost in the poem 'Justice'. I therefore decided to list the main metaphorical structure, so that those who are interested might get a better understanding. Wheels (wagons) = countries (Main one represents the U.S.) Drivers= Governments/rulers Shepherd= Justice & defense system Horses= Philosophies Breeders= Philosophers Those are the main metaphors. I believe it should be enough in order to get on the right track and understand the poem. Following this lead, the other metaphors can be easily inferred.
  12. There can be no argument, assumption or action irrelevant (disconnected from) or 'not applying to philosophy. Each one of the above (if executed) implying certain philosophical premises (whether consciously or unconsciously). That means everything; everything you say, think or do. Everything-- but laying flat without a breath (and that too in some cases), has to do with philosophy. (Philosophy being the only science that can serve as man's 'guide to life') Yet, in the philosophical chaos of today (when most people are not explicitly aware of their philosophy or the field as such), to use Dr. Peikoff's apt description: most people are a mixture of black and white. It is therefore followed that 'Justice' would be the objective acknowledgment of both. The reason for liking or disliking an individual lays in ones values; if one identifies certain values in the person of another, he'll feel a favorable emotional response towards him, and vice versa. Therefore, given the above, one might (and likely to) meet an individual whose philosophy is inconsistent or who is otherwise ignorant of the whole field, and yet find certain values in that person (integrity, self-esteem, professionalism) which are a product of his sense of life and where achieved by his direct perception of existence, despite his 'philosophical ignorance'. (It is important to remember that philosophy is a process of identification and integration--integration of what already exists. The benefit of the process is consistency.) In that case one might very well be interested in a more intimate relationship with that person. Now, to combine all my previous arguments, in some point (or many points, depending on both individual's level of consistency) a disagreement will arise (and as I first said, all of which have a philosophical nature) in that crucial point; If you compromise your knowledge--you evade! If, later on you try avoiding those conflicts--you evade! If you say 'the hell with it-- lets go grab a beer'--you evade! In other words; anytime and in any way you chose to default on what you know to be true--will only result in an evasion and will be of no benefit to either one! To carry on such a relationship will be sentencing oneself to a life of hypocrisy, rationalizations and evasion. On the other hand, if upon disagreement, the individual listens to your arguments and by his objective judgment (to the extant of his ability) chooses to correct his false assumption, the result will be a most beneficial experience to both (especially to him). To bring my point to essentials: most people today are philosophically ignorant, let along the explicit knowledge of 'Objectivism'. What all people do posses (to whatever extant they choose to use it) is common-sense; perception of objective reality. Therefore, if one is to have any relationships, most of them will probably involve 'non-objectivists'. If a person is honest and his quest is to live his life as good as he can--there should be no reason for you not enjoy his company. Moreover, that person will probably find your arguments fruitful and be eager to challenge you (and himself) with his assumptions. Contrary, if a person seeks to evade knowledge and reality in favor of a 'nurtured dream world', there is no reason why you (if coming from different premises) should seek any further intimacy with him. (That is given that your rational arguments where baselessly rejected) Such a relationship can bring only devastation; a relationship, like anything else, is about gaining values--not loosing/compromising them. As for previous posts, I must admit that I haven't read the original thread and therefore have only a vague idea of the initial problem. Moreover, I have no interest of getting into your personal disputes nor take any part in them. Yet, I believe that a person shouldn't be hushed for stating the truth--however harsh his presentation of it might have been. If the one starting the thread was seeking an answer, he should be wise enough to let reason be his guide other then a wave of emotions (given the 'audience' he chose to address his question to). As I see it, the remark about 'not giving philosophical lectures' (I'm not sure where it was initiated), in this context would be an equivalent to 'do not breathe...', or, 'do not type...' Moreover, I think that presenting the above phrase as 'a negative' is very inappropriate, especially here. What I mean is, isn't it what this site is all about...?
  13. The movie 'Spiderman', which was mentioned above, has a most Altruistic base. The essence of the movie is that the hero has to sacrifice the life he wants (studies, the woman he loves) in order to help 'the people'--just because 'they need him' (and regardless of the contempt and hatred he gets in return- that last point is more evident in the TV series then the movie). Not to mention all the irrationalities in the idea of 'Supernatural-powers'. I cannot see how a movie can get any more Altruistic then that (unless it’s a movie made in Soviet Russia by the communist propaganda--supervised by Stalin himself...) As far as I see it, the question is not 'how many movies point to Objectivism?' (As a philosophy)There are none... (Excluding the 'Fountainhead', which, being adapted from the book, is obviously based on Objectivism-- Although I believe it to be a poor adoption which brings little justice to the novel.) The question is rather 'what movies do not point to Altruism?' Most of them, at least at some point, do. That, I believe, is due to tradition (bad habit, if you'd like); A selfless love, a greedy businessman and a selfless hero are just a few of the 'tunes' movie directors just love to 'play' (probably because they've ‘swallowed’ it as kids, and now, never stopping to digest, they feed it to ‘their children’… ) Just as an example, you can take any available Christmas movie... Anyway, a movie I enjoy watching over and over (even after memorizing the plot) is 'The Shawshank Redemption'. Watching this movie is like listening to a good album--Every single time you find something you’ve missed, and the things you know you like, you enjoy them every time anew! This movie is a most beautiful hymn to human spirit-- to freedom, to justice, and to the good in general--Most importantly, it has no Altruistic implications! This is a movie I sincerely advise to everyone. For those who didn't see it yet--Enjoy! For those who did (and probably know what I'm talking about)-- keep enjoying.
  14. I forgot to add that the minor mistakes, if left unattened, might cause problems later on. (In addition to their implications).
  15. Maty

    My Poems

    Very slow tempo, allow space when reading and words to fade out. Emptiness; Every bottle, Has a bottom… So it cannot Get Any emptier… And yet this night, Seems to be bottomless… I keep sinking, Deeper, In it’s space… Thinking, Of a place… Deeper... This bottle, Seems to be full of it; Emptiness... And yet, Might it be loneliness? Playing its old tricks…
  • Create New...